The Civil War in Syria

Nothing like a walkover where the grateful locals will strew roses in our path for removing another Baathist regime.

We've seen the massacre footage of the headshot babbies. Are we obliged to war and if so why? What says the Hive Mind?

I of course say "intervening between Muslims" has backfired horribly so far, and cost dearly in blood and treasure (and an impressive number of the Muslims we were supposedly rescuing!) for not much if any net gain. Better our enemies bleed each other for as long as possible at no cost to the US.

I'd like to say 'Do it like Libya, with material support for the homegrown democratic movement', but as we've seen, Democracy doesn't take hold, the military does, and then we get nothing except a new douche to hate. Egypt's about to 'democratically' install one of two people guaranteed to NOT promote Democracy, Libya seems to be headed for MORE militarism, and who knows what's happening in Tunisia. I get the whole human rights aspect too, but really, it's clear from the comparable events that the new boss will be as vile and violent as the old boss. I say let everyone else fight this one out BUT us.

Is this a genuine question, or is it just posited so that the OP can wade in with their usual 'muslim on muslim violence is a good thing as it weakens our enemies and fits in nicely with my incredibly superficial understanding of what realpolitik actually is'?

I'd say if there is one takeaway from Iraq and Aghanistan its don't bother - you will just flush piles of money and likely not be one iota better off/better liked or improved anything for the other side down the track.

I feel sorry for the people stuck in the middle but what can you do? Airlift out a whole country while selectively leaving behind the knuckledraggers who want to kill everybody to stay in power?

Nothing like a walkover where the grateful locals will strew roses in our path for removing another Baathist regime.

We've seen the massacre footage of the headshot babbies. Are we obliged to war and if so why? What says the Hive Mind?

There's obviously no appetite for it in the West; the rich world has their own problems, mostly economic, to worry about. After all, we put Kofi Annan in charge of the situation. That shows we don't care.

Maybe if by August the slaughter is getting worse, as is the American economy and Obama is behind in the polls, maybe the calculus would be different. Barring that, or Turkey being drawn into it, I don't see any real chance.

Maybe if by August the slaughter is getting worse, as is the American economy and Obama is behind in the polls, maybe the calculus would be different. Barring that, or Turkey being drawn into it, I don't see any real chance.

The Saudi regime seem to be arming the Syrian rebels. I have this cynical feeling the the quid pro quo for oil prices remaining low in the the approach the US election will be regime change in Syria.

Maybe if by August the slaughter is getting worse, as is the American economy and Obama is behind in the polls, maybe the calculus would be different. Barring that, or Turkey being drawn into it, I don't see any real chance.

The Saudi regime seem to be arming the Syrian rebels. I have this cynical feeling the the quid pro quo for oil prices remaining low in the the approach the US election will be regime change in Syria.

So? In this case, it seems like it would be hard to exchange one dictator for another, so the end result will almost certainly be less brutal and totalitarian than either Assad, or what the Sauds would want to see.

I do hope the Syrians succeed in overthrowing Assad; my grandfather spoke well of Damascus and liked going there as a Merchant Marine.

The end game for Syria is already in play. The US is now publicly rebuking Russia's obvious involvement with arming Assad, while similarly denying that the US is supporting the rebels. Of course, allies such as Qatar and Saudi Arabia are more than ready with generous aid when the time is ripe. A new development this week is that the fighting now appears to be migrating to Damascus proper, which, once escalated, may set certain things in motion.

The fight over Syria is an additional squeeze on Iran (Syria's main ally besides Russia). Iran is already under tremendous pressure with their economy crumbling from within. Frankly, I doubt there will be much of a big push on Syria until the US elections are over. By that time however, the Syrian Free Rebels should be much better organized and equipped. Even with the tremendous firepower advantage of the Assad terror troops, they have demonstrated that they are incapable of squashing the rebels.

Maybe if by August the slaughter is getting worse, as is the American economy and Obama is behind in the polls, maybe the calculus would be different. Barring that, or Turkey being drawn into it, I don't see any real chance.

The Saudi regime seem to be arming the Syrian rebels. I have this cynical feeling the the quid pro quo for oil prices remaining low in the the approach the US election will be regime change in Syria.

So? In this case, it seems like it would be hard to exchange one dictator for another, so the end result will almost certainly be less brutal and totalitarian than either Assad, or what the Sauds would want to see.

I do hope the Syrians succeed in overthrowing Assad; my grandfather spoke well of Damascus and liked going there as a Merchant Marine.

Just that the old regime won't go quietly, so there will be much suffering and bloodshed before our forces (UK and US) are demanded to finish the coup causing more suffering and bloodshed, and the the new regime will be who the Saudis choose. Quite probably just as brutal as Assad; almost certainly religiously intolerant meaning two more generation of the same till that regime is deposed.

I don't know what the right thing to do is; and maybe that is the least worst outcome. But I like to hope it could be better.

This sounds like it's tailor made for a Libyan or Pakistani style response. We're playing up the tank/artillery shelling of rebel civilian population centers, so it's time to do some more drone testing.

Given the unpopularity of the Assad regime and how much a minority the Allowites (sp?) are, simply taking away most of the heavy toys with drones would vastly hasten the end game. I don't have much if any faith that they'll replace him with anything better, but without some intervention the situation will take much longer to play out, and that's going to lead directly to a lot more dead people in the crossfire.

The Libyan intervention hasn't and likely won't lead to some utopian democratic society, but I'd posit that us neutralizing most of the heavy weapons did lead to a vastly reduced civilian body count.

Well Iran has admitted that it is actively participating in the crackdown in Syria.

Quote:

The rare admission that Iran was aiding the Damascus regime came in a statement from General Ismail Qa’ani, deputy-commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards’ Quds Force,

“If the Islamic Republic was not present in Syria, the massacre of civilians would have been twice as bad,” General Ismail Qa’ani, deputy-commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards’ Quds Force, told Tehran’s ISNA news agency.

Iran, he added, “Had physically and non-physically stopped the rebels from killing many more among the Syrian people.”

Airlift out a whole country while selectively leaving behind the knuckledraggers who want to kill everybody to stay in power?

That would just export toxic culture without any modern virtues elsewhere and burden the rescuing nations. We need to understand that primitive cultures are best contained, not dispersed. Not all cultures produce the same outcomes and no amount of PC denial will change that.

Syria is the outcome of the Syrian culture and way of life. Average Syrians are gleefully killing other average Syrians. Nature of the region, cultures, and religion. All of it is bad and none of it should be deliberately spread to infect better regions.

Those who find such things good should stay in the region and wallow to their hearts content. The rest of us should lock the doors. We don't need more religious immigrants, and Muslims don't benefit secular freedom when they bring their superstition with them.

To accept immigrants who bring primitive beliefs is to GIVE them authority over a portion of YOUR country by their votes. It is to GIVE them some power over decisions made by YOUR government. It is to GIVE people whose superstition demands strict religionist rule a voice in YOUR affairs. I've seen the best Muslims can do with limitless wealth. I don't want them running ANY portion of the US any more than I'd want to take orders from some witch doctor with a bone in his nose. If you favor letting in religious fanatics, you favor SUBMITTING to them. Think about it.

Is this a genuine question, or is it just posited so that the OP can wade in with their usual 'muslim on muslim violence is a good thing as it weakens our enemies and fits in nicely with my incredibly superficial understanding of what realpolitik actually is'?

The thread regarding war is genuine, but the immigration issue was mentioned and that IS germane to any intervention the US does from Viet Nam onwards. (Viet Nam isn't Muslim.)

When you break other peoples countries without restoring them to a condition where the folks you "rescued" are willing and able to live there, you create refugees. When the people your intervention displaces add nothing of use to your country, you bought even more problems than your failed intervention caused.

Wrecking countries for giggles instead of national interest is degenerate. Said wrecking includes disrupting established orders and disenfranchising groups, such as Iraqi Baathists, who are displaced by "peacekeeping" measures.

There was no serious talk of intervention when Assad senior flattened Hama. There were no great consequences to leaving him in place.

There won't BE an issue if there is no intervention.

How about "indulging in recreational war" being considered in light of all its consequences?

Taking out Syria for Israeli benefit appears to be the real goal, but that's not necessarily the best choice for the US because unlike Israel, we'd have to pay for it and pay for the results. Being religiously welded to the Chosen People is expensive.

Israel is understandably eager to get in on the action and the familiar media groundwork is being laid:

The thread regarding war is genuine, but the immigration issue was mentioned and that IS germane to any intervention the US does from Viet Nam onwards. (Viet Nam isn't Muslim.)

When you break other peoples countries without restoring them to a condition where the folks you "rescued" are willing and able to live there, you create refugees. When the people your intervention displaces add nothing of use to your country, you bought even more problems than your failed intervention caused.

Wrecking countries for giggles instead of national interest is degenerate. Said wrecking includes disrupting established orders and disenfranchising groups, such as Iraqi Baathists, who are displaced by "peacekeeping" measures.

There was no serious talk of intervention when Assad senior flattened Hama. There were no great consequences to leaving him in place.

There won't BE an issue if there is no intervention.

How about "indulging in recreational war" being considered in light of all its consequences?

Taking out Syria for Israeli benefit appears to be the real goal, but that's not necessarily the best choice for the US because unlike Israel, we'd have to pay for it and pay for the results. Being religiously welded to the Chosen People is expensive.

Israel is understandably eager to get in on the action and the familiar media groundwork is being laid:

Public opinion in Israel is firmly against any Israeli intervention in Syria; nothing good for Israel can come out of it. The Israeli-Syrian border has been one of the quietest for the last 30 years, why would Israel want to change the status-quot?

No kidding.* help the regime (win or lose) -> Rebels and their sympathizers have renewed, extra hatred for Israel. Regime throws Israel under the bus anyways the next time they need to deflect hatred from themselves* help the rebels and rebels lose -> Regime is pissed off at Israel, entire rest of Islamic world sees Israel as meddlers, and factions of the rebels will be bitter at Israel for not helping enough* help the rebels and the rebels win -> Entire rest of Islamic world sees Israel as meddlers involved in a proxy war to overthrow them.

The best they can do is be nice to refugees, but that has practical problems (anti-Israel factions sneaking in as refugees).

The thread regarding war is genuine, but the immigration issue was mentioned and that IS germane to any intervention the US does from Viet Nam onwards. (Viet Nam isn't Muslim.)

When you break other peoples countries without restoring them to a condition where the folks you "rescued" are willing and able to live there, you create refugees. When the people your intervention displaces add nothing of use to your country, you bought even more problems than your failed intervention caused.

Wrecking countries for giggles instead of national interest is degenerate. Said wrecking includes disrupting established orders and disenfranchising groups, such as Iraqi Baathists, who are displaced by "peacekeeping" measures.

There was no serious talk of intervention when Assad senior flattened Hama. There were no great consequences to leaving him in place.

There won't BE an issue if there is no intervention.

How about "indulging in recreational war" being considered in light of all its consequences?

Taking out Syria for Israeli benefit appears to be the real goal, but that's not necessarily the best choice for the US because unlike Israel, we'd have to pay for it and pay for the results. Being religiously welded to the Chosen People is expensive.

Israel is understandably eager to get in on the action and the familiar media groundwork is being laid:

Public opinion in Israel is firmly against any Israeli intervention in Syria; nothing good for Israel can come out of it. The Israeli-Syrian border has been one of the quietest for the last 30 years, why would Israel want to change the status-quot?

Joe's right. That said, regime change doesn't automatically mean a change in that status quo. Egypt's not rallying for another fight with Israel; the cold peace works far better for both sides, and could even lead to greater trade, travel, and tourism, given the right situations. Syria might want the same.

This sounds like it's tailor made for a Libyan or Pakistani style response. We're playing up the tank/artillery shelling of rebel civilian population centers, so it's time to do some more drone testing.

Given the unpopularity of the Assad regime and how much a minority the Allowites (sp?) are, simply taking away most of the heavy toys with drones would vastly hasten the end game. I don't have much if any faith that they'll replace him with anything better, but without some intervention the situation will take much longer to play out, and that's going to lead directly to a lot more dead people in the crossfire.

The Libyan intervention hasn't and likely won't lead to some utopian democratic society, but I'd posit that us neutralizing most of the heavy weapons did lead to a vastly reduced civilian body count.

The Shia look to be supporting Assad too, and I'd imagine the Kurds are too. That's more like 75/25 split. It'll be bloody.

Plus, with the hit the Russian arms dealers took on Libya, there's no way Russia will stop supporting Assad. The domestic pressure to continue support is way stronger than the international pressure to end it.

Are there natural fragmentation lines in Syria which might favor a "Yugoslav Solution", perhaps with a bit of prodding?

There is no reason for enemy ethnic groups to share a country, Syria is an Ottoman artifact, and smaller countries would be usefully weak.

The wikipedia page for the Alawi (the Alawites) shows some of the French partitions along cultural/tribal borders, but given that the Alawites are both in power and to blame, I doubt there's much likelihood of them accepting a 'exile to the mountains' solution, esp. if they enjoy the broad support of the other cultures, as alleged above. If that schism is as described, I can't imagine the new gov't being as substantively different as previously hoped.

USians don't require brown or yellow opponents, and have quite a record of plinking (very) White Folks with gusto. They don't really sort by ethnicity and religion as much as it might appear. They'll even favor Muslims over Christians where they think it expedient (the Former Republic of Yugoslavia) to work against (White) Russians.

Why the US elites are still fascinated with continuing the Cold War with Russia is a bit of a mystery. Islamists (correctly) believe that the US isn't acting out of altruism.

Random slacker, congratulations, you just proved that the 'natives' had their gene pool corrupted by foreign nationals along the way, be it from war rape, camp followers, intermarriage or just general shenanigans (see also American Vietnamese kids).

This isnt so much Cold war, as slightly chilly from the air conditioning war, Russia under Putin is trying to flex its muscleskis, china is busily trying to distract the world from shitty growth levels and its own political and human rights scandals. Whilst the US didnt directly assist Osama, they sure as fuck funded (and armed) the crap out of the Mujahadeen, mostly via christians in action (think about it) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Director_o ... telligence - see the segment on william j casey.

Irony ... "To watch the courageous Afghan freedom fighters battle modern arsenals with simple hand-held weapons is an inspiration to those who love freedom."— U.S. President Ronald Reagan, March 21, 1983.